Slashdot Mirror
'The Circle' Trailer Looks An Awful Lot Like Google (cnet.com)
theodp writes: If you never got around to reading Dave Eggers' novel The Circle, the tale of a powerful tech company that bears a more-than-passing resemblance to Google (and has an Apple spaceship-like HQ) is coming to the big screen and the first trailer is out. The film has a release date of spring 2017, and stars Tom Hanks, Emma Watson and John Boyega. Remember, sharing is caring!
Even Google doesn't know the answer to that one.
Another bunch of people that sit for hours every year giving each other gold statues for getting paid millions of dollars with the expectation that millions of people will want to watch them do so will go on another rant about how some industry other than theirs (that god forbid does something besides put out two hours of amusement at a time) is secretly "evil" and corrupt and etc etc! And I'm suuuuure that unlike The Big Short, or basically almost any time they try to do technology, they'll stick with actual criticism instead of shifting facts around or just making up straight bullshit to tell a better st- aaaand the book it's based on is a already that. Goodnight folks, nothing to see here!
I'll walk out after 15 mins. I really tried to like the book, but the hip references to modern tech felt absolutely kickable.. like watching a Sandra Bullock movie in a similar vein. Sorry. I'll pass.
Who keeps telling Tom Hanks what?
Silicon Valley and San Francisco are a bike ride away (as shown in The Internship).
this already exists....
please educate your fellow workers :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu#Censorship
regards
John Jones
Thats the question! And if google doesn't even know who keeps telling Tom Hanks what, we need to find out why.
Tom Hanks is an asshole.
Trevor Moore, spreading Fake News before it got cool!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If it's from Hollywood, post 1968, then:
1. The villain will be a US military agency, a US spy agency, a corporation/CEO, a gun company, a non-renewable energy company.
2. The hero will be a military person who goes rogue, a whistleblower, a leftwing politician, a leftwing lobbyist/staffer/lawyer/journalist/activist.
3. The evildoer will be motivated by money or political power.
4. The good outcome will be something leftwing, and the villain will be defeated in-part by some failing of his/her rightwing ideology.
5. Big government (except for the military), and/or globalist entities (like the UN) will be portrayed positively.
Somehow, Hollywood keeps pumping out the same basic drivel over and over and pretends that each such plot has some "shocking" element or plot twist, which it does not - this stuff it too predictable now to even be interesting and any variations tend to be very superficial.
Man, this thing is going to suck. Typical hollywood rubbish. Worse than a Dan Brown story.
This looks more like the movie Anti-Trust more than anything else to me.
Spoilers below if you haven't watched it
In both movies a psycho (T)Billionaire tech company CEO decides to spy on everyone (including employees), is fine with 'small sacrifices for the betterment of society' (aka killing a few people who get in HIS way)
My guess is that the end of the movie (and book) end with the Main Character releasing all the secrets that the Evil Corporation has amassed (including proof of their wrong-doings) to the public in an OSS format. ...
The CEO was Microsoft/Bill Gates clone in Anti-Trust and is Google/(More generic CEO than what Alphabet has) in The Circle. I think both movies are just social commentary on monopolies and the power they wield... and why they need broken up... ;)
So I doubt this is about them
Is the movie company full of ads?
Remember, sharing is caring!
..The fuck is this supposed to mean? We're expected to shill for this movie because we're geeks? Disgusting.
[Sorry, this signature is unavailable in your country/region]
I would also like to know how we dont know who keeps telling Tom Hanks about 'something'. Google? Aside: the Circle alwaus seemed to be more based on farcebook to me and ultimately the political battle between conservatism and out of control liberal fascism.
He couldn't act his way out of a nutsack
Stay strong, Mr. Hanky.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I would have loved to have been in that meeting.
I know from context that you meant to write "always", but my mind interpreted that word as "walrus" ;)
Now how does that work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism is what we today call the "alt-right" - right-populism. The greatest enemy of fascism is those who prefer, support and embrace diversity - what the alt-right calls "cucks". Fascists seek a return to the "good old days", some sort of lost "days of glory", where "traditional" values reigned, while simultaneously rejecting the globalism and the focus on
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Love me some Trevor Moore.
Microsoft got Antitrust (with Tim Robbins as "the character who definitely isn't Bill Gates"
Facebook got um, what was that rubbish called again?
and now Google.
Jeff Bozo must be waiting for the Amazon movie with baited breath (typos deliberate).
Run home, Forrest.
On Internet forums, especially if you're AC, "fascism" just means "zealousness". Like, "I hate the liberal fascists just as much as the conservative ones, and the Green Party fascists are the worst.".
The trailer had a definite "Antitrust" refresh feel. Glib technicals, up[dated topicality, although the potential solipsist hell of tracked and targeted browsing self-selection/overt censorship may or may not be fully explored in the full movie. Haven't read the book yet to see if it is there. Note to self: get up to speed on Eggers.
So on "Internet forums" you just make up the meanings of words to suit whatever you'd like to say, interesting.
I think you're an ass pounding faggot, personally. Don't worry, faggot on Internet forums actually means "faggot."
Though they are both awful, Google is ten times the fascist organization that Facebook is. You don't need my hrlp, evidence is all around the internet and in life. If you are really curious, look up literally anything Eric Schmidt has said or done over the past ten years. It was getting to be so problematic that they took the microphone away from him, he is a true sociopath.
No, what it means is that we have a troll here whose agenda is to tilt the entire exchange so that every political disposition is judged against the most strident example of the first-to-mind reductive cliche.
It's a war against subtlety. It's a war against moderates and it's a war against moderation—where "moderation" means the kind of people who think before speaking. It's a distributed, grassroots campaign to normalize the extremes through the implication that all stupidity is created equal. It's painting an f-washed world in which no person is angry or intense because they have a valid point to make about some aspect of society being not right. It's an exit ramp lowered to a swamp world where anger is a Halloween costume (Yoda, Darth Vader), rather than a tool (Martin Luther King, Jr).
That's what it means when 'fascism' becomes a trivialized wingnut stand-in for 'zealotry', a word which already has two boots firmly planted in labelling over listening. Add heels, click, and the world becomes corn-belt Kansas 24/7.
Fearmongering! Keep calm and learn to code and use linux. Fuck apple, fuck m$, fuck google! Fuck this stupid film too lol...
I do not believe the GP meant to indicate any support for the usage, just comment on what it was.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Silicon Valley and San Francisco are a bike ride away (as shown in The Internship).
They *are*. I have an idiot friend who makes the commute from SF to Facebook via bicycle daily. Only if it's raining does he load his bike on the rack on the bus, in the hopes that it will stop raining later, and he will be able to use the bike to go the other direction, the next time he needs to move from one to the other.
Of course... he's Australian, and they are all crazy. ;^)
The meanings of all words is made up. They are also fluid and change over time. There's no right meaning to a word, there's just its usage.
Wait, that would be more like Yahoo!
Have gnu, will travel.
Just read the book.
Yes, thank you for summarizing the situation from the liberal point of view.
I will try to give a view from the center.
Usually when someone says "fascism" in this context they really mean "totalitarianism". Essentially everyone conflates the Nazis, fascists and totalitarianism but it is clear that totalitarianism can be on any side of the political spectrum, it just has too many syllables.
So the current backlash, which got a demagogue (Trump) elected was, in my opinion, caused as a reaction against the leftist (or liberal if you wish) totalitarianism that has been on the rise recently. These groups have gone around dictating their view of the world and then actively gone on campaigns to deny platforms and ruin the livelihoods of people who do not conform.
As an example, equality in race is not enough. Even though laws have been passed that make it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race for housing, jobs, school and anything else, these groups insist that there is institutional racism and that the majority group has to accept that they have a "privilege" and atone for it. Any questioning of this on the part of the majority group is seen as additional evidence of racism and is termed "fragility". Further efforts are made to dehumanize the majority group and to negate what they have to say with statements, like "It's not possible to be racist against Whites".
Other examples exist, including Feminist claims that there is a rape culture in the West and other groups insisting that a failure to use their chosen pronouns is actual violence against them.
What all of these groups share is a totalitarian methodology that tries to control all discussion, dictate what is and isn't OK to talk about, and to enforce their world view through threats and intimidation.
I was in an elevator with Hanks once. Got in the up car when I was going down three floors. Went to the top floor, 21, and Hanks got in. Farts a dry, stony fart, and says, "Gumped my rump." and laughs. "Enjoy 20 floors of smelling like fame," he said, as he raped my seeing eye dog.
His voice is just so distinctive, had to be him. Preview Bite the pillow tab dotslashpassword click submit. Submit God dammit Ed will you click this button for me.
That works in the U.S. mindset because the "liberals" of the United States, the Democrats, are opposed to individual liberty and support Corporation control of the government. In the U.S., the "right" end of the spectrum is the one that is classically liberal.
You contradict yourself and even the references you posted from Wikipedia. I suggest liberal doses of psilocybin, and some time away from whatever you have been reading.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
I think you're giving them to much credit. War and agenda implies a plan and purpose, when they are probably just picking up the first word that has a heavy negative connotation they can think of (whether it makes sense in context hardly matters to them). The push to extremes where moderates are shouted into the background is a side effect that they are perfectly happy to accept. Certainly this is something that politicians of both sides have latched onto to convince people that all their problems are caused by the other party. They no longer bother stating their agenda, they expect you to infer it from what they attack about their opponent. To many of us have given in to our natural attraction to ideas that re-enforce our preconceived notions and actively seek out news and friends that do nothing to challenge them.
While I see your point about making a valid point in an intense way, I have never considered Martin Luther King, Jr an angry man. He had ample reason to be and he certainly was not accepting of the injustices he fought against, but he was not belligerent or hateful. We respect him because he saw a problem and unlike many of his contemporaries he approached in a way that exposed those that perpetuated those injustices as angry and uncaring instead of joining them. I hold him in high regard because he found a way to make the grievances known to the world that could not be ignored, but still civil and non-violent (for his part).
I agree it is important that fascism not be trivialized. It is important that it retain its original meaning since it reminds us of the historical evidence that the extremes of political ideology are not the answer. There is no way to maintain an extremely left or extremely right wing government without gaining and abusing the power to silence opposition. Since no ideology is "pure" this generally expands to the point where it includes your neighbor, your loved ones, or you.
You kind of lost your point with the Kansas statement, since that statement is a form of labeling contradicting your previous statement. Trump actually came in a distant second in the Kansas primary. While I've met a few Trump supporters here, I've probably met as many Hillary supporters (very few). When I say supporter I mean someone who actually thinks electing the Trump or Hillary was a good idea. I know a lot of people who voted for Trump, but most as a way of voting against Hillary. In Kansas, Trump was one of the terrible candidates running who happened to be mildly more acceptable to some people. For my part I wrote in my own candidate as neither candidate represented my view point and were unacceptable.
A Moderate Conservative, Kansas
I would amend "more than a passing resemblance to Google" with a heavy dose of Fosterite Cult (cause I don't dare sat Scientology).
I found it to be an easy, light and fluffy read. It's premise is group-think magnified by tech and the WW Web. Resulting loss of individuality. See also Hellstrom's Hive. The book makes it point, but like many polemics it leaves me feeling like I wish it were a novella or short story. Or I was expecting a nice steak and someone serves me kale.
You are correct. I don't support the usage. Just trying to warn Rei that 5 paragraphs on how fascism is incompatible with liberalism is not going to hit home with AC.